Ex Parte Blume

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 10, 2010

10251875 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LEO R. BLUME
____________________

Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: June 10, 2010
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to systems and methods
for window priority rendering in graphical user interface (GUI) applications
(Spec. 1, ll. 2-3). More specifically, the invention involves, for example,
(1) calculating and assigning a window priority to a plurality of windows;
(2) drawing the windows according to the calculated window priority; and
(3) applying filtering operations to the low priority windows to reduce the
level of distraction caused by the multiple windows (Spec. 1, ll. 21-24; and
Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method for window priority rendering in
graphical user interface (GUI) applications, comprising:

calculating and assigning window priority to a plurality
of windows; and

drawing the windows according to the calculated window
priority by rendering images in higher priority windows at a
first image quality and rendering images in lower priority
windows at a second image quality reduced from the first image
quality;

Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

3
wherein image quality comprises at least one from a
group comprising resolution, saturation, brightness, and
contrast.

Prior Art
LeClair 5,717,838 Feb. 10, 1998
Porter 5,838,318 Nov. 17, 1998
Hiroi 6,384,846 B1 May 7, 2002

Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiroi and LeClair.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiroi, LeClair, and Porter.

Claim Groupings
Appellant argues the rejection of claim 1 on the basis of independent
claims 1, 12, and 151, and do not present separate arguments for claims 2-20
(see App. Br. 7-18). We select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 2-20 as standing or falling with
representative claim 1.
We accept Appellant's grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
ISSUES
Appellant argues his invention is not obvious over Hiroi and LeClair
because neither reference teaches or suggest “rendering images in higher

1 On pages 17 and 18 of the Appeal Brief, we find Appellant mistakenly
states that claim 9 is an independent claim (see App. Br .17-18).
Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

4
priority windows at a first image quality and rendering images in lower
priority windows at a second image quality reduced from the first image
quality; wherein image quality comprises at least one from a group
comprising resolution, saturation, brightness, and contrast” (see App. Br. 7-
13).
With respect to Hiroi, Appellant contends their images are rendered at
different qualities based on priority while Hiroi’s images are rendered at a
single, uniform image quality but at different times or rates (App. Br. 9 and
App. Br. 11). Appellant argues that Hiroi’s partially rendering some images
at the uniform image quality is not the same as rendering images at a
reduced image quality (App. Br. 11).
With respect to LeClair, Appellant contends LeClair provides a single
image to the user in various versions shown as thumbnails, each version
having different properties (App. Br. 12). However, Appellant argues none
of the thumbnails “can be said to be higher priority than [the] others” (App.
Br. 12). Appellant acknowledges LeClair mentions resolution and
brightness, but argues “the simple fact that one could present such
thumbnails in different qualities does not remedy the deficiencies of Hiroi”
(see App. Br. 12-13).
Appellant additionally argues one of ordinary skill in the GUI art
would not have been motivated to combine Hiroi with Leclair, as Hiroi and
LeClair are two materially different references that solve two materially
different problems (App. Br. 13 and App. Br. 15). Specifically, Appellant
contends (1) “Hiroi addresses the problem of rendering windows more
slowly than other windows” and (2) “LeClair addresses printing
Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

5
inefficiencies by rendering a single image in multiple identical priority
formats for selection by the user and subsequent printing” (App. Br. 15).
Appellant argues the Examiner used hindsight reasoning in fashioning the
combination of Hiroi and LeClair and has provided no rational reasons to
support the combination of the references (See App. Br. 15-17).
The Examiner finds Hiroi teaches when an image is assigned a higher
priority, a larger percentage of the image will be decoded compared to a
lower priority image (Ans. 8). Therefore, the Examiner finds, the higher
priority would have a difference in the number of pixels both horizontally
and vertically (id.).
The Examiner additionally finds LeClair teaches altering image
quality as a user is permitted to choose properties of an image (Ans. 8-9).
The Examiner finds images are generated based on the chosen property
values and displayed as thumbnails (Ans. 9).
The Examiner further concludes it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, “to modify the image
rendering taught by Hiroi to include the image[] qualities of LeClair, in
order to obtain a graphical user interface where data displayed is
distinctively identified” (id.). According to the Examiner, one or ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hiroi and LeClair, as
varying the quality of each window would have made it easy to manage
multiple windows on a GUI (see Ans. 4).
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests rendering high priority images at a first image quality and lower
priority images at a second image quality reduced from the first image
Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

6
quality, where image quality comprises one from a group comprising
resolution, saturation, brightness, and contrast?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in combining the Hiroi and LeClair
references?
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Hiroi Reference
(1) In one embodiment, images which are displayed in large
windows are allocated a higher priority, in terms of rendering resource
allocation, than images in smaller windows. “In this context, being assigned
a higher priority, in terms of image rendering resource allocation, means that
a larger percentage of the image assigned the higher priority will be decoded
than an image which is assigned a lower priority.” (Col. 2, ll. 19-26).
LeClair Reference
(2) A system and method for calibrating a computer print image is
disclosed that involves successively displaying and refining print image
properties. “The user interface enables the selection of preferred image from
the rendered modified images.” Image properties include color scheme,
image resolution, color information, and other printer options. A thumbnail
image is generated for each version of the image, based on the chosen
properties. (Col. 2, ll. 14-35 and col. 4, ll. 7-34).

ANALYSIS
Since Hiroi teaches that “images which are displayed in large
windows are allocated a higher priority, in terms of rendering resource
allocation, than images in smaller windows” (FF 1), we find Hiroi teaches
Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

7
rendering a first image (i.e., the images displayed in the large windows) at a
higher priority than a second image (i.e., images displayed in smaller
windows). Further, Hiroi teaches that images assigned a higher priority will
have a larger percentage of the image decoded than a lower priority image
(id). Thus, we find the image in the large window is rendered at a first
quality as it fully decoded and the lower priority images are partially
rendered and thus, necessarily of a lesser quality, as the full image is not
rendered.
Additionally, we find LeClair teaches displaying images having
varying properties (e.g., image resolution and contrast) (FF 2). Since the
quality of an image will vary according to the image resolution and contrast
selected and each version will be displayed as a thumbnail, we find LeClair
teaches or suggests displaying images of varying image qualities (id).
Accordingly, we find LeClair teaches or suggests rendering images having at
least one image quality from a group comprising resolution, saturation,
brightness, and contrast.
Further, we find the Examiner did not err in combining Hiroi and
LeClair. Hiroi and LeClair are in analogous art since both references are
from the same field of endeavor - managing multiple windows on a
graphical user interface through the rendering of those windows and quality
choices for the windows (Ans. 4; FF 1 and FF 2). (Two separate tests define
the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

8
involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979) and In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Further, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the image rendering taught by
Hiroi to include the image[] qualities of LeClair, in order to obtain a
graphical user interface where data displayed is distinctively identified”
(Ans. 4). We conclude the combination of Hiroi and LeClair is simply a
combination of familiar elements that yields predictable results, as rendering
images according to an assigned priority and varying the quality of an image
rendered were well known in the art and were used to display images to
users based upon selected image quality properties. “The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Based on the Examiner’s reasoning which has been articulated with a
rational underpinning (Ans. 4), we find one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the techniques of LeClair into the system of
Hiroi. (“…[T]his court has consistently stated that a court or examiner may
find a motivation to combine prior art references in the nature of the problem
to be solved.”) Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d
1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we find the (1) the prior art teaches or suggests
rendering high priority images at a first image quality and lower priority
images at a second image quality reduced from the first image quality, where
Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

9
image quality comprises one from a group comprising resolution, saturation,
brightness, and contrast and (2) the Examiner did not err in combining Hiroi
and LeClair.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 is
not obvious over Hiroi and LeClair. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17 and
19 were grouped and argued with respect to claim 1 and/or were not argued
separately; therefore, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for obviousness over Hiroi and LeClair.
Appellant asserts that dependent claims 4, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 20 are not
obvious over Hiroi, LeClair, and Porter based upon the arguments presented
with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 15 (App. Br. 18) 2. For the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellants have not shown
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hiroi, LeClair, and Porter.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Hiroi and LeClair is
affirmed.

2 On page 18 of the Appeal Brief, we find that Appellant mistakenly states
that claim 9 is an independent claim (App. Br. 18).
Appeal 2009-004857
Application 10/251,875

10
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Hiroi, LeClair, and Porter is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

Vsh

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528